I hope that I'm missing something here but not impressed. I know that this is not a low light camera, but even with decent lighting at subject/object, i just can't see anything all that clearly. Second, it doesn't appear to be able to zoom as far as it really says (without giving too much vibration/shaking) or really degrading picture quality. Third, I often have to wait a good 5-10 seconds for the black screen to go away so i can actually see the view (the camera constantly seems to turn off the display/tun it back on)..very annoying.

I have it set for manual zooming..but im not sure if some other settings need to be changed?

TO use that much telephoto handheld, even with the built-in stabilization takes a little technique.

Still, the rest of the things you are reporting are odd, so perhaps you need to flip through the manual and/or call Nikon.

Also, I would like to point out that regardless of what the spec says, ultra long telephoto is sorta complicated and I'll be very surprised if you get any sort of respectable image quality anywhere near the spec'ed extent of the telephoto. If you get somethimg decent at 1200mm equivalent, consider it a lucky day and stop right there.

More light in the scene simply allows you to use lower ISO, which means less digital noise, which means better image quality.

For years I have been wondering what is the significance of ISO on digital cameras since they're not using film. My daughter's camera ( a Canon D6 ) is brighter with faster lenses and I thought faster lenses simply allowed you to SEE the picture as your eyes saw it, rather than being unnaturally dark.

Nikon P900 offers a lot of zoom, but not all of it us truly usable. Still, out to 1800mm, it is surprisingly decent.

As far as overall image quality goes, it is decent for the price and for the reach you get, but ultimately very mediocre (Canon SX50 mentioned earlier is somewhat similar if not worse).

The decision really comes down to how much magnification you are looking for. P900, to me, has a very limited range of applications due to noise imaging pipeline and limited dynamic range. You need a lot of even lighting to make that long zoom lens work.

If I were buying a bridge camera today, I would be taking a close look at Panasonic FZ1000, Sony RX10 Mark II and Canon G3X. As an allround camera, the FZ1000 is probably your best bet for the money. All three do quite well, all things considered, in low light.

While none of these have as much reach as the P900, they actually deliver quality images in a variety of conditions.

To address another question i saw earlier in the thread: if you attach your cellphone to an eyepiece of a binocular, the effective focal length of your observation system is the equivalent focal length of the lens in your cell phone multiplied by the magnification factor of the binocular.

For example, if you are using a 8x42 binocular with an iPhone 6, the effective focal length you end up with is 8x29=232mm.

If you use your iPhone with a spotting spotter that can go all the way out to 60x, you end up with an effective focal length of 1740mm.

I like phonescoping (which is apparently a real term), but I use a much higher resolution Lumia 1020 phone for it, so I can get the combination to reach very far.

The biggest advantage of using a spotter or binocular with a cellphone is that digital cameras are not designed for observation, regardless of how much detail the camera may be capturing, seeing it on that small screen is difficult for any prolonged observation.

ILya

I have to say that you were right. I think i've played enough with the settings to see that it's not me making a mistake that's causing me to be disappointed by this camera.

1. About the observation.. Staring at that screen while zooming is not realistic for any long period of time. Not good for observation.

2. I have shaky hands..this can't be really solved. It's not a huge problem, but it's enough of a problem that in combination with zooming in far enough, and me shaking a bit, picture quality is bad.

3. This camera is not ideal for any type of low light situation. Even when there is decent lighting..I can still see my object better with my $200 binocular than with this camera. I don't really agree (At least with this camera) with the person that said that camera tends to give you a better image and binos less so. This in large part was what sold me. I got the impression that when i looked at the screen of the camera (or at least the actual pic/video after) that the quality would impress me. In night, with at least some light, it's not better than my $200 binocular.

I miss the simplicity of just push processing TMAX 3200 and then printing it myself.

haha. I'm sure you are commenting at what I said...again I will read the manuals more..but this is not brain surgery. i looked at the manuals..changed to the settings it told me to change ..and still wasn't pleased.

You really hit the nail on the head with that post. I think I got caught up in watching videos of that camera and it seemed to make me look past some of the posts..but to be honest i've never seen really use this camera during the night.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum